Comparison of conversational-recasting and imitative procedures for training grammatical structures in children with specific language impairment.

The recent literature on language intervention has become increasingly focused upon developing treatments that more closely parallel normal language acquisition. However, there have been relatively few reports that directly compare imitative procedures to conversational-interactive interventions. The purpose of the present study was to compare the relative effectiveness of imitative intervention and conversational recast language intervention applied to a wide range of grammatical morpheme and complex sentence targets in 21 children with specific language impairment. The results indicated that although both kinds of treatments were effective in triggering acquisition of most targets, consistently fewer presentations to first spontaneous use were required in the conversational procedure. In addition, the transition from elicited production to generalized spontaneous production was more rapid under conversation-interactive treatment. Finally, although imitation treatment was more effective in generating elicited production, a significantly greater number of spontaneous productions occurred under the conversational training procedures. The theoretical and applied ramifications of these findings are discussed.

[1]  P. Dale,et al.  Individual Differences in Language Delayed Children's Responses to Direct and Interactive Preschool Instruction , 1991 .

[2]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  Functionalism and the competition model , 1989 .

[3]  R. Brown,et al.  A First Language , 1973 .

[4]  P J Connell Teaching subjecthood to language-disordered children. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  K. Nelson,et al.  Recasting and related conversational techniques for triggering syntactic advances by young children , 1984 .

[6]  K. Nelson,et al.  Treatment efficiency as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders. , 1992, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[7]  Marc E. Fey,et al.  Language intervention with young children , 1986 .

[8]  P Tallal,et al.  Selection of children with specific language deficits. , 1981, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[9]  G. Siegel,et al.  Therapy and research. , 1985, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[10]  Janet A. Welsh,et al.  Effects of imitative and conversational recasting treatment on the acquisition of grammar in children with specific language impairment and younger language-normal children. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  Keith E. Nelson,et al.  Facilitating children's syntax acquisition. , 1977 .

[12]  S. E. Weismer,et al.  Modeling versus modeling plus evoked production training: a comparison of two language intervention methods. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[13]  A. Kaiser,et al.  An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and child characteristics. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  S. Warren,et al.  Incidental Language TeachingA Critical Review , 1986 .

[15]  Bruce P. Ryan,et al.  A language program for the nonlanguage child , 1973 .

[16]  P. Friedman,et al.  Accounting for individual differences when comparing the effectiveness of remedial language teaching methods , 1980, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[17]  R. Waller Accounting for the individual , 1985 .

[18]  S H Long,et al.  Two approaches to the facilitation of grammar in children with language impairment: an experimental evaluation. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  K. Nelson Strategies for first language teaching. , 1989 .

[20]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. , 1992 .

[21]  P. Dale,et al.  Direct language instruction and interactive language instruction with language delayed preschool children: a comparison study. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  S. Warren,et al.  Incidental language teaching: a critical review. , 1986, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[23]  J. Stemple,et al.  Communication apprehension in esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. , 1985, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[24]  Maureen D. Haynes,et al.  Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language–Revised (TACL–R) , 1989, Diagnostique.

[25]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[26]  G. Conti-Ramsden,et al.  Pragmatic Disability in Children , 1992 .

[27]  Laura L. Lee Interactive Language Development Teaching: The Clinical Presentation of Grammatical Structure , 1975 .

[28]  A. Kaiser,et al.  Evaluating milieu teaching. , 1992 .

[29]  Charles A. Ferguson Individual differences in language learning. , 1989 .

[30]  L. Olswang,et al.  Language learning: moving performance from a context-dependent to -i ndependent state , 1986 .

[31]  G. Conti-Ramsden Maternal recasts and other contingent replies to language-impaired children. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[32]  Jon F. Miller,et al.  Assessing language production in children , 1980 .

[33]  P. Connell An effect of modeling and imitation teaching procedures on children with and without specific language impairment. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[34]  L. Leonard An Invited Article Facilitating linguistic skills in children with specific language impairment , 1981, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[35]  G ARTHUR,et al.  The Arthur adaptation of the Leiter international performance scale. , 1949, Journal of clinical psychology.

[36]  Richard L. Schiefelbusch,et al.  Causes and Effects in Communication and Language Intervention , 1991 .

[37]  C. Stone,et al.  Morpheme learning of children with specific language impairment under controlled instructional conditions. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[38]  L. Olswang,et al.  Role of mothers' expansions in stimulating children's language production. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.